Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tognar

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)

[edit] Tognar

This article was tagged as {{db}} for being a "dicdef of neologism," but that does not quite qualify for speedy deletion so I moved it over here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, this is so totally Delete!. Non-notable dicdef neologism. Do not pass to Wiktionary. Do not collect 200 Wikidollars. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete, I'll take those wikidollars, thank you. Radiant_>|< 08:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete; Also, you might want to move the speedy on Gnarly here. Thanks for the reminder as to speedy policy... it's just that there's so much crap :( But yes, I'll heed your advice. jglc | t | c 18:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: No meaning or use to people who don't care about it.

ChercherEccles 18:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete this and Gnarly, vanity dic def. Not in wide use, not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I note that Wikipedia permits neologist entries in the case of 'realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits'. I think it could do with a more matter-of-fact rewrite, though jamesgibbon 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism. Actually Wiktionary might allow neologisms, if there is evidence of currency of the term. Wikipedia is never about word meanings. A dictionary definition of "monotonous" would not be valid, because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Geogre 05:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.